Scottish Independence and the Scottish Economy

Debate between Ian Murray and Sammy Wilson

Wednesday 2nd November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Ian Murray]

Mr Deputy Speaker, honestly! We want a sensible debate, but according to the hon. Gentleman I am taking my ball home and going to the House of Lords. I suspect that the reason he is so animated is that his seat might become a Labour seat at the next general election. Let me tell him my prospectus for Scotland: my prospectus is that Scotland stays in the United Kingdom with a UK Labour Government. That is my policy. He seems to forget that this is his motion, not mine: I am replying to an SNP Opposition day debate on a motion tabled by SNP Members in their own terms.

I was talking about the reserves of other countries. The SNP’s approach to creating Scotland’s reserves, which would be a fraction of those of other countries, is to borrow. The SNP’s proposition for independence is to continue to use the pound while setting up its own central bank, being a Scottish lender of last resort and borrowing tens of billions of pounds to create reserves for a new currency. The very foundation of the new state would be built on unfunded, unforecasted borrowing. It is like someone trying to build up their savings by using a credit card. We know it is bonkers, because the UK Government have just demonstrated how bonkers it is, and SNP Members know it.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

I congratulate the shadow Secretary of State on demolishing the case for independence. Mind you, a feather could probably knock that case over; it does not need a wrecking ball.

The shadow Secretary of State is talking about the economic disaster that would come after independence. Does he accept that as part of the United Kingdom, even with the largesse that comes from Westminster, the Scottish Government have still failed to raise education standards, to have effective policing or to deal with the drugs crisis in Scotland? Indeed, they already have the lowest rate of economic growth.

[Ian Murray]

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman up to a point, but I wish he would not refer to the UK Government’s largesse or Westminster’s largesse. It is this Conservative Government’s largesse, and if we want to turn the UK around and keep the UK together, we have to replace this rotten lot with a UK Labour Government.

The right hon. Gentleman is right, however: the list of failures of Scottish Government policy is the length of your arm, and I would be here until 7 o’clock this evening if I went through them all. That includes the failures in my own constituency, where it is impossible to get a GP appointment. The Health Secretary tells me there is no problem, although NHS Lothian has said that health services and GP services in my constituency are failing—and I quote that directly from one of its reports.

Let me now turn to the subject of the European Union, because we have heard a lot about that. I remind the House—including my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield, who made some great points about the EU—that when the Division bell rang on our efforts to find a way through a deal with the European Union, we would have won on the customs union had the SNP not abstained. And let us not forget that when the Division bell rang on 12 December, after the general election, when the offer on the trade and co-operation agreement was “take it or leave it”, SNP Members voted for no deal. That is their record here: they talk a good game, but they do not deliver when they should be delivering.

Much like the experience of some Conservative Members in recent years, the response from Brussels has not fitted the preconceived fantasy. At the aforementioned press conference, the First Minister rejected the idea that Scotland would join the euro, saying it was

“not the right option for Scotland”.

Nonetheless, she added, Scotland would have no problem with joining the European Union. That is awkward, is it not, because the EU does not seem to agree. The law does not seem to agree. Officials have insisted, and the treaties state, that any country wishing to join the EU would legally have to commit to the euro. I wonder whether any SNP Members can shed any light on the Scottish Government’s position—but let me answer my own question, because I am more likely to get the answer than I would be if the SNP answered it.

The paper says that an independent Scotland would use the pound for an undetermined period, then borrow tens of billions—which may be an inadequate amount—to support a new currency, only to have to legally commit to joining the euro at some point in the future. The SNP has more currency positions in this paper than we have had Prime Ministers since the summer. If the mini-Budget has demonstrated anything, it is that the markets take a dim view of fantasy economics. What an economic catastrophe for Scottish people’s mortgages, borrowing, pensions and wages!

Before SNP Members start jumping up and down, as they have already, saying that some EU countries do not use the euro, let me repeat that every new member of the European Union must legally commit to joining the euro. That is written in an international treaty, which is international law. But here comes the conundrum for the SNP. The paper that has been presented by the First Minister does several things; are she and the SNP saying (a) that they are not willing to abide by the EU rules on the euro? They have already said that they would not join the exchange rate mechanism. They would play their games: they would say they would do it, and would not. Is that the policy, or is it (b)? If it is not joining the euro, they are essentially saying that a separate Scotland would sit outside the rest of the UK and the EU with a different currency.

Strengthening the Union

Debate between Ian Murray and Sammy Wilson

Monday 23rd July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Ian Murray]

I was not here for the urgent question, so I cannot clarify those figures, but I can say that in my eight years in the House the Opposition have won three votes, so breaking those pairing arrangements has obviously not affected the operation of Parliament, and I do think it important to maintain the pairing arrangements.

Then we get on to the way the Government have dealt with the Brexit process in terms of devolution. It has not been the Secretary of State for Scotland’s finest hour. I am sure that if we could wind the clock back to April, May or June and have those debates again, the Government would have dealt with it differently. We had promise after promise at the Dispatch Box from the Secretary of State, and all those promises were wiped aside. I intervened on the hon. Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr) at least nine times, if not more—maybe he can tell us during his contribution—to ask when it was all going to happen, what his objections were and how they were going to resolve those devolution problems, and I am still waiting to hear the answers. I look forward to him telling us when I intervene on him during his speech later.

Then we have a Government in chaos, with resignation after resignation after resignation: the Secretary of State in charge of the negotiations to take us out of the EU, gone; the worst Foreign Secretary in history, gone; and all just a few parliamentary weeks away from having to agree the final EU deal.

Then we have the question of a hard Brexit. Everyone is going, “What’s a hard Brexit? What’s a soft Brexit?” However, when we look at what the Government are doing, we are hurtling towards a no deal Brexit. The Government put together—cobbled together after two years—what they now affectionately call the Chequers agreement. The following week, they undermined that very same agreement by accepting amendments to the Trade Bill and the customs Bill that have driven a horse and coaches—a “corse and hoaches” if you have been drinking the same whisky as the Minister who opened the debate—right through that agreement. Not only did those changes undermine the agreement, but the EU had already ruled out the agreement in its original form. We are heading for a hard or no deal Brexit, and all that is happening in the Government at the moment is that people are trying to fight for the keys to No. 10, rather than for what is in this country’s interests.

Everyone in this House, to a person, will absolutely agree that there should be no hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. However, the Government have set red lines in the Brexit process that make that completely and utterly unachievable, which undermines the fabric of the United Kingdom. I keep asking Ministers this question, but I cannot get an answer, so it would be interesting to hear an answer from the Scottish Conservative MPs this evening. If the Government can argue, with the red lines that they have set, that they will no longer require any kind of border equipment on the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, if the UK and the Republic of Ireland are in two different trade and customs arrangements, how could they possibly argue, in the event of another independence referendum, that we would require a border between Scotland and England?

[Sammy Wilson]

The hon. Gentleman is restating the oft-repeated myth about the border between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic. I do not know whether he noticed that EU negotiators—Juncker and Barnier—promised the Irish Government this week that there would not have to be any kind of checks at the border between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic, even in the event of no deal. If there can be no checks with no deal, we can have no checks with any sort of deal.

[Ian Murray]

That is an extraordinary comment. We will see what happens come 29 March 2019 or after the transition period. I just do not think that the right hon. Gentleman can achieve what he wants to achieve with the Government’s current negotiating position.

The Scottish Conservative leader Ruth Davidson promised during the 2017 snap general election that, if Scottish Conservative MPs were sent to Westminster, they would stand against the Prime Minister’s hard Brexit and deliver what would be in Scotland’s best possible interests—[Hon. Members: “She never said that.”] Well, if she did not say that, perhaps the Scottish Conservative MPs can tell me what she did say. Ruth Davidson stands up day after day, week after week, to rail against her own Government here at Westminster, while the 13 Scottish Conservative MPs loyally traipse into the Lobby to put through the hard Brexit and everything else that is upsetting for Scotland.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Ian Murray and Sammy Wilson

Committee: 4th sitting: House of Commons
Monday 4th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that if the powers are devolved without a framework having first been established, whether we are talking about a European or a UK single market, that principle could not be applied, because powers would be devolved to four different Administrations who could then make whatever regulations they wanted? How does the hon. Gentleman marry that with the need—the recognised need, as he has pointed out—for a UK single market? Surely the framework should first be set, with the remaining powers then devolved to the Assemblies.

[Ian Murray]

But that assumes that we automatically start from the position of hoarding the powers here at Westminster, and I disagree with that principle. The principle must be that when a power is currently devolved to the devolved Administrations, that power should remain devolved—it is very simple. I accept that Members might not agree with that principle, but it is fairly sensible. My amendment 164 would merely remove from section 29(2)(d) of the Scotland Act 1998, on legislative competence, the words “or with EU law”, meaning that everything else would have to be compatible with the Act.

Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill

Debate between Ian Murray and Sammy Wilson

Wednesday 11th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Ian Murray]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are getting to the crux of the issue, because it is becoming clear exactly why this part has been included in the Bill. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the accuracy or otherwise of the membership lists of trade unions. If the Committee does not believe me, it should listen to Lord Tyler, the Liberal Democrat spokesperson on constitutional affairs, who said that one explanation for this part of the Bill is the role that some unions play in the Labour party:

“The third arm of the Bill is about ensuring that trade unions have accurate membership lists. We will listen carefully to what people have to say about how the detail of this is set up, but the principle seems beyond dispute. The membership numbers of a trade union have a bearing on how much money they can give to a political party through their political funds. In this sense, the trade unions have a unique role in UK politics. It is therefore important for transparency’s sake that the membership lists are accurate.”

I agree with Lord Tyler that it is important that the lists are accurate, but they are already heavily regulated in law. I think this has more to do with the Government’s obsession with the Labour party and trade unions than with legislating to help hard-working, ordinary people.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

I had hoped that we would get an explanation as to why this part of the Bill is essential. If the only argument that can be made is that the public should be able to complain about a controversial ballot, surely if it was that controversial it would be taken up by the trade union movement and a trade unionist would object to it rather than wait for a member of the public to do so.

[Ian Murray]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. No general secretary of a trade union, whether it is affiliated to the Labour party or not, would take strike action on the basis of a 51:49% vote of its membership. It would also be concerned about the legality of its membership list if any of it was found to be inaccurate, but the point is that legislation on the accuracy of membership lists already exists. It is in the union’s best interests—this has nothing to do with strike action—to have and maintain accurate membership lists, because it wants to communicate with its members, and it is also in the members’ interests to ensure that the unions have accurate details.